[3.5] Archers nerfed! Meleers/Spellcasters rejoice!

[diaglo]

"...Gah, wish I had longer fingernails to get out this here....+2 keen toothpick?"

toothpicks are piercing weapons. they can't be keen.

 

[Hypersmurf]

toothpicks are piercing weapons. they can't be keen.

After the Keen errata, Keen Toothpicks are viable. But the second printing of Sword and Fist nerfed toothpicks' threat range back down to 19-20, so they're not a munchkin weapon any more.

-Hyp.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I reckon that they've probably changed the cost to arrows too. Arrows are too expensive already as it is.

 

[Al]

After moaning about the Disintegrate and Horrid Wilting nerfs, here's one I can agree with (having been a DM to far too many uber archers). Three cheers for archer nerfs!

 

[JRRNeiklot]

You either play an archer or don't have much experience DMing a min/maxed archer. The biggest problem is the stacking enhancement bonuses. We took them away, and the archer was no better than most of the other melees in the group. This one change alone does alot to balance archery against melee.

Correct, but without gmw, where is he gonna get +5 arrows? It gets expensive after a while. And in a campaign where magic isn't available at the local 7-11, they'll be rarer, still. Let's say he drops 50 grand for 50 +5 arrows. At 5 shots a round, they'll last 10 rounds. Without gmw, there is no way the archer can afford this for long.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

JRR,

You should still be able to obtain decent plus on your arrows with GMW if the duration and number affected hasn't been severely reduced. Just remember, archers are the only melee that doesn't take a beating in combat, at least until all the frontline melee are dead.

I am also going to assume that with the DR changes, it will actually be easier for an archer to carry around different types of arrows to affect different creatures. I know you won't have a bow without some kind of energy desciptor or special ability as well. Archers will still be extremely effective.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Re: Re

You should still be able to obtain decent plus on your arrows with GMW if the duration and number affected hasn't been severely reduced.

I suspect the duration probably has, given the stat buff changes.

-Hyp.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Archers will still kick ass. I'm not contesting that. I just think getting rid of gmw would have been better than non stacking bonuses. The price alone would be a balancing factor. Not saying I'm against the change, just that gmw was the problem, not the stacking. With gmw, every archer with a 15th level spellcaster in his party will have an endless supply of +5 arrows. From what I've heard, this will change a bit, but he'll still have +4s. With that spell available, even melee guys should never buy anything over a +1 sword. IMO, that one spell unbalances the game on so many fronts.

 

[mmu1]

Assuming it's still a 4th level clerical spell, does anyone else think it's kind of stupid to give Clerics GMW at 7th level if it gives +1/4 caster levels?

Under 3E, mages were in a similar situation, but since they can choose when to learn new spells, it's less of an issue than someone automatically getting spells known that they have no use for unless they level up...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Assuming it's still a 4th level clerical spell, does anyone else think it's kind of stupid to give Clerics GMW at 7th level if it gives +1/4 caster levels?

Bead of Karma...

-Hyp.